Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openapi-lookup-mcp

openapi-lookup-mcp

by fredarcito
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Get API endpoint details

get_endpoint
Read-only

Retrieve one API endpoint from an OpenAPI or Swagger spec as a compact, schema-resolved summary of auth, parameters, request body, and responses without reading the full document.

Instructions

Show the auth, parameters, request body and responses of one API endpoint as a compact summary with referenced schemas resolved. The path may be a template (/users/{id}), a concrete path (/users/42) or a full URL.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNoReturn the original spec YAML instead of the summary; use only when the summary lacks a detail
pathYesEndpoint path, e.g. /users/{id}
methodNoHTTP method; omit to show every method of the path
refreshNoDownload the spec again first; use when the result does not match the API's real behaviour

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds what the annotations cannot: the return is a compact summary, not raw spec text, and referenced schemas are resolved into it. That output-shaping detail is exactly the extra context that matters for a read tool with no output schema. It stops short of covering caching, spec source, or response size.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the accepted input forms. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (summary with resolved schemas) and the valid input shape. It does not say where the spec comes from or how this relates to get_schema, which is the main remaining gap for an agent choosing between siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends the path parameter beyond the schema's single '/users/{id}' example by admitting template, concrete, and full-URL forms. That is real added meaning an agent would otherwise have to guess at. The other three parameters are left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it shows the auth, parameters, request body and responses of ONE endpoint as a resolved compact summary. The 'one API endpoint' scope implicitly separates it from search_endpoints, but it never names get_schema or otherwise contrasts with a sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage conditions for the raw and refresh flags exist, but they live in the schema rather than the prose, and the description gives no when-to-use guidance relative to search_endpoints or get_schema. The one useful hint is the accepted path forms, which implies you can call it with either a template or a concrete path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools